CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2016; 10(01): 016-022
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175692
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

A 3-year randomized clinical trial evaluating two different bonded posterior restorations: Amalgam versus resin composite

Hande Kemaloglu
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkiye
Tijen Pamir
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkiye
Huseyin Tezel
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkiye
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 September 2019 (online)


Objective: To compare the performance and postoperative sensitivity of a posterior resin composite with that of bonded amalgam in 40 (n = 20) large sized cavities and to evaluate whether resin composite could be an alternative for bonded amalgam. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized clinical trial. Twenty patients in need of at least two posterior restorations were recruited. Authors randomly assigned one half of the restorations to receive bonded amalgam and the other half to composite restorations. Forty bonded amalgams (n = 20) and composites (n = 20) were evaluated for their performance on modified-US Public Health Service criteria and postoperative sensitivity using visual analogue scale (VAS) for 36-months. Results: Success rate of this study was 100%. First clinical alterations were rated as Bravo after 1 year in marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, anatomical form, and surface roughness for both amalgam and composite. At the 3rd year, overall “Bravo” rated restorations were 12 for bonded amalgam and 13 for resin composites. There were no significant differences among the VAS scores of composites and bonded amalgams for all periods (P > 0.05) except for the comparisons at the 3rd year evaluation (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, both resin composite and bonded amalgam were clinically acceptable. Postoperative sensitivity results tend to decrease more in composite restorations rather than amalgams. Therefore, it was concluded that posterior resin composite can be used even in large sized cavities.


  • 1 Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 2003; 7: 63-70
  • 2 Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84: 289-96
  • 3 Statement on posterior resin-based composites. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs; ADA Council on Dental Benefit Programs. J Am Dent Assoc 1998; 129: 1627-8
  • 4 UNEP Dental Amalgam Phase-Down Project East Africa Dental Amalgam Phase-Down (EADAP) Project Promoting the ‘Phase Down’ Approach of Dental Amalgam in Developing Countries. Available from: [Last accessed on 2015 Dec 30]
  • 5 Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 1063-7
  • 6 Setcos JC, Staninec M, Wilson NH. Bonding of amalgam restorations: Existing knowledge and future prospects. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 121-9
  • 7 Van Ende A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: Effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 269-77
  • 8 Van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Randomized 3-year clinical evaluation of Class I and II posterior resin restorations placed with a bulk-fill resin composite and a one-step self-etching adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2015; 17: 81-8
  • 9 van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 1371-9
  • 10 Ozer F, Blatz MB. Self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems in clinical dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2013; 34: 12-4 16, 18
  • 11 Perdigão J, Geraldeli S, Hodges JS. Total-etch versus self-etch adhesive: Effect on postoperative sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1621-9
  • 12 Van Dijken JW. A 6-year prospective evaluation of a one-step HEMA-free self-etching adhesive in Class II restorations. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 1116-22
  • 13 ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. Direct and indirect restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 463-72
  • 14 Soares AC, Cavalheiro A. A review of amalgam and composite longevity of posterior restorations. Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac 2010; 51: 155-64
  • 15 Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J. et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138: 775-83
  • 16 Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore memorial lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 481-508
  • 17 Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 2-8
  • 18 Celik C, Arhun N, Yamanel K. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: 12-month results. Eur J Dent 2010; 4: 57-65
  • 19 Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D'Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V. Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent 2003; 31: 395-405
  • 20 McCracken MS, Gordan VV, Litaker MS, Funkhouser E, Fellows JL, Shamp DG. et al. A 24-month evaluation of amalgam and resin-based composite restorations: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc 2013; 144: 583-93
  • 21 Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res 2008; 87: 710-9
  • 22 Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: Findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138: 763-72
  • 23 Krämer N, García-Godoy F, Reinelt C, Feilzer AJ, Frankenberger R. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 455-64
  • 24 Staninec M, Holt M. Bonding of amalgam to tooth structure: Tensile adhesion and microleakage tests. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59: 397-402
  • 25 Tarim B, Suzuki S, Suzuki S, Cox CF. Marginal integrity of bonded amalgam restorations. Am J Dent 1996; 9: 72-6
  • 26 McComb D, Brown J, Forman M. Shear bond strength of resin-mediated amalgam-dentin attachment after cyclic loading. Oper Dent 1995; 20: 236-40
  • 27 Opdam NJ, Feilzer AJ, Roeters JJ, Smale I. Class I occlusal composite resin restorations: In vivo post-operative sensitivity, wall adaptation, and microleakage. Am J Dent 1998; 11: 229-34